By waving away the hard parts you’re missing why it’s not a simple question in the context of this paper (what I was writing about).

The behavioral test they used showed different results under different circumstances. Even variables like temperature might impact the behavior exhibited in the test.

> You always have to distill complicated papers that babble about things to a minimum statement.

Disagree. You always have to read the papers and understand the details.

> That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too.

This hardly follows.

Agreed. Also, "simple isn't easy".

> That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too.

"Is P equal to NP" is also a simple question.

The answer should be simple, too -- either yes or no. OP did not imply proving it would be simple.

I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to claim your 1 million dollars from the Clay Mathematics Institute by just answering yes or no.

That's why I'm going to go with a friend. I'll say yes, he'll say no, and we'll split the winnings. Easy money.

OP did imply that the paper contained the simple answer, though.

It’s easy to say that the truth is simple if you ignore everything about exploring whether or not a paper is an accurate representation of the truth.